Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
100 Missions

Lexington, NC

#44726 Nov 22, 2013
Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are a coward afraid to stand and defend Liberty and Freedom for all. Just because they will call you a terrorist. People like you have no right to even be in this country. You dishonor the men and women who have given their lives so you can live free.
Very Very well said! Our forefathers did not forge our way; our WWII troops did not sacrifice all just to have us sell the farm in the end. A stand must taken. Today instead of arms and bullets our weapons are the vote. We have mid-term next year and 2016 is close. Cock and Lock and fight. The power of the vote is a most powerful weapon if people will use it right.
TSF

Rocky Mount, NC

#44727 Nov 22, 2013
I think it was to point out that the president is commander in chief of the military. As such he can crush rebellions
of tens of thousands or even rebellions of millions. It has ben done before. Criticism, allowed. Spouting off threats, not a wise choice in todays world .
Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
What is your point TSF?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#44728 Nov 22, 2013
TSF wrote:
I think it was to point out that the president is commander in chief of the military. As such he can crush rebellions
of tens of thousands or even rebellions of millions. It has ben done before. Criticism, allowed. Spouting off threats, not a wise choice in todays world .
<quoted text>
The POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the military, but he couldn't get it straight on Benghazi and that could have easily been a contained situation. So, you're telling me he can crush rebellions of tens of thousands when he didn't have the backbone to allow our troops on ground to take control of at the time what secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, referred to as a small group of people pissed over a video?

Well, you might have a point depending on how many drones he has and wants to use without lawful consent or trial to kill Americans.
TSF

Rocky Mount, NC

#44729 Nov 22, 2013
I have no doubt he would use them to protect himself and established order in the USA. That is his job. People making threats against the government today are walking on dangerous ground, even if it is just blowing off like taxpayer is probably doing. Look what happened at Waco-- burning children alive to protect them from child abuse ? Do you think there would be even a heartbeat of hesitation to waste some idiots instigating armed rebellion ? Republikanism is getting totally out of perspective for some of these beckerheads when they start verbalizing such crap...
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
The POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the military, but he couldn't get it straight on Benghazi and that could have easily been a contained situation. So, you're telling me he can crush rebellions of tens of thousands when he didn't have the backbone to allow our troops on ground to take control of at the time what secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, referred to as a small group of people pissed over a video?
Well, you might have a point depending on how many drones he has and wants to use without lawful consent or trial to kill Americans.
State of Florida

Taylorsville, NC

#44730 Nov 22, 2013
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
You need a dose of reality and I'm going to give it to you. Whether you like it or not there are people who don't or won't take care of their children. They don't feed, clothe, nurture, educate or even try to meet the basic needs of their children. You can send these people all the public assistance in the world, provide them with parenting classes, beg and plead for them to take care of their children and they don't. Should children be forced to live in roach and drug infested, filthy homes with their basic needs of food, and hygiene ignored? If you're ok with children staying in such conditions, then I'm not ok with you.
Parents who thumb their noses at a plan to take care of their children don't deserve children. Parents are given options until the stupid switch is turned off. They can do a PIP (parent initiated plan), kinship plan (stay with relatives) or they can go into the foster system.
I read the local news daily online and everyday I see where children, babies or toddlers die due to neglect by their "loving" parents who leave them with strangers, alone, or with a 6-10 year old child to take care of them. This was happening years ago and still is happening today.
You can call it a "Disposed Child Plan" but I call it getting children out of a no win and many times painful and deadly plan. BTW, it happens to children of parents on welfare and parents living in nice homes in nice neighborhoods. I don't really care about their economic background, what I care about is giving children a chance. If the parents are accepting public assistance and not using it for the well being of their children, take the money and give to families that will take care of their children and make parents of means pay child support for the care of their children if they're not going to do it.
Is that clear enough for you? YES, I think every child that is being denied minimal needs which is one step above living like a dog as a result of parents that don't give a rip, should be taken from their parents.
I must have been confused. I thought we already had a safeguard set up for abused and neglected children through a definite set of laws that protected them from any harm that may hurt or injure them. The system that I am familiar with is when Social Services is contacted for any situation where a child is in harms way, an investigation is conducted and it is determined whether the child would be better served in the current home situation, or should be removed and placed elsewhere. Did I miss something in this understanding of the current system, or did you? So, let me get this straight. You suggest that anyone receiving public assistance and unemployed has a year grace period to find gainful employment, and if this is not secured in this time period, an order from the government is given to that family that all the children in this home are to be removed and taken over as a ward of the state and all benefits to the adult members of the family are discontinued? Do I have this correct?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#44731 Nov 22, 2013
State of Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
I must have been confused. I thought we already had a safeguard set up for abused and neglected children through a definite set of laws that protected them from any harm that may hurt or injure them. The system that I am familiar with is when Social Services is contacted for any situation where a child is in harms way, an investigation is conducted and it is determined whether the child would be better served in the current home situation, or should be removed and placed elsewhere. Did I miss something in this understanding of the current system, or did you? So, let me get this straight. You suggest that anyone receiving public assistance and unemployed has a year grace period to find gainful employment, and if this is not secured in this time period, an order from the government is given to that family that all the children in this home are to be removed and taken over as a ward of the state and all benefits to the adult members of the family are discontinued? Do I have this correct?
No Arnold, you pick and choose what you want to argue about in posts by others and forget the whole post must be addressed for accurate reply. If notice in the post, I said if parents don't work the plan they're suppose to. Since you seem to be not as well versed in DSS and how they operate, I'll help you out. If a parent is substantiated for neglect of any kind, they're given a plan to work which usually requires addressing the neglect whether it be inadequate supervision, medical neglect, neglect of feeding the children properly, neglect by putting children at risk in a filthy home etc. Get it!! If there is suspected drug abuse, they're required to submit to random drug testing, in addition, they're normally required to take parenting classes and encouraged to further their education if they haven't graduated high school. MANY parents will not and do not follow these plans set forth by their case worker. I don't believe children should have to live off the whim of a don't give a damn parent that can't get their $hit together and do just the basics. Yes, I do believe putting their children with foster parents and cutting funding to the parents and giving these funds to caretakers whether it be a friend, relative or foster parent should be done. Look, if you can't get your life pulled together with the copious amount of resources provided by DSS, and public assistance within a year, then the parents need a reality check and the children DESERVE more than some half-ass that doesn't care enough to work a simple case plan.
State of Florida

Taylorsville, NC

#44732 Nov 22, 2013
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes Arnold I am. I also support making parents that will not take care of their children have their funding cut after one year of no work and removing their children.
Does the child who is being removed from his home have a say in this matter, or are they taken from the parents and placed in foster homes by a sole decision of the government, regardless of the child's feelings and love for their parents? If so, how does this benefit the child being forced to do something against their will?
Sc boy

Smartt, TN

#44733 Nov 22, 2013
I was made to go to school against my will for twelve years.
State of Florida

Taylorsville, NC

#44734 Nov 22, 2013
Sc boy wrote:
I was made to go to school against my will for twelve years.
But you were never taken away from your parents, were you? Could the government come and take your kids away from you for the crime of not having a job? How much resistance would you put up?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#44735 Nov 22, 2013
State of Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the child who is being removed from his home have a say in this matter, or are they taken from the parents and placed in foster homes by a sole decision of the government, regardless of the child's feelings and love for their parents? If so, how does this benefit the child being forced to do something against their will?
Arnold, I think you would agree that infants, toddlers, children in kindergarten need a child advocate as they're not cognizant enough at this age or really up until about age 13-15 to make this decision on their own.

Children love unconditionally and I can tell you I have sat in a courtroom many a time and watched children that were victims of severe abuse by a parent be asked where they want to live and every time they would articulate with the parent that abused them. They don't understand that abuse is not love. It's like women who are victims of DV that say they made their husbands abuse them and the husbands only do it because they love them. These children need counseling and guidance about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate as far as love, discipline, and what a parent's role is in their life.

No Arnold, they don't have a choice and shouldn't have one. They get visitation, phone calls, etc with their parent(s) and half of the time many parents wouldn't even attend those.

Instead of asking me, what would be your solution?
Sc boy

Marion, NC

#44736 Nov 22, 2013
State of Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
But you were never taken away from your parents, were you? Could the government come and take your kids away from you for the crime of not having a job? How much resistance would you put up?
My parents were not abusive nor were they drug addicts.They were democrats.
Sc boy

Marion, NC

#44737 Nov 22, 2013
My mother cried when Kennedy was shot.So I did too.
State of Florida

Taylorsville, NC

#44738 Nov 22, 2013
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Arnold, I think you would agree that infants, toddlers, children in kindergarten need a child advocate as they're not cognizant enough at this age or really up until about age 13-15 to make this decision on their own.
Children love unconditionally and I can tell you I have sat in a courtroom many a time and watched children that were victims of severe abuse by a parent be asked where they want to live and every time they would articulate with the parent that abused them. They don't understand that abuse is not love. It's like women who are victims of DV that say they made their husbands abuse them and the husbands only do it because they love them. These children need counseling and guidance about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate as far as love, discipline, and what a parent's role is in their life.
No Arnold, they don't have a choice and shouldn't have one. They get visitation, phone calls, etc with their parent(s) and half of the time many parents wouldn't even attend those.
Instead of asking me, what would be your solution?
You are always bringing the subject back to abuse. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ABUSIVE SITUATIONS where I know all reasonable people would DEMAND the child or children being removed from the home. You said that if they are "unemployed" after a year's time that their children would be removed. If you are going to remove the children from the parent you would have to have some law being broken to enforce a penalty, then you would have to make unemployment a crime. Is unemployment in fact a crime subject to children being removed from the home? You actually think this would hold up as the law in a Supreme Court decision? Come on now, you can't be that dense!

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#44739 Nov 22, 2013
State of Florida wrote:
<quoted text>
You are always bringing the subject back to abuse. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ABUSIVE SITUATIONS where I know all reasonable people would DEMAND the child or children being removed from the home. You said that if they are "unemployed" after a year's time that their children would be removed. If you are going to remove the children from the parent you would have to have some law being broken to enforce a penalty, then you would have to make unemployment a crime. Is unemployment in fact a crime subject to children being removed from the home? You actually think this would hold up as the law in a Supreme Court decision? Come on now, you can't be that dense!
It was held up in the State Supreme Court. Edited and proofed the briefs.

Apparently I'm not as dense as you. What don't you get? Parents who do not or will not work cannot provide for their children. Thus, children fail to get proper medical help, nutrition, clothing, and many times housing they need. Now I don't know where you come from, but these are considered minimal needs that must be met by the parent. However, if a report is made and DSS investigates and a parent is overwhelmed and cannot provide for their children and neglect is substantiated appropriate services will be put in place and a case plan the parent must work. If the parent fails to work the case plan and thumbs their nose at the very system that is trying to help them, then their children can be removed. Why should any parent sit at home all day, not work, with their rent paid, insurance, food stamps and day care provided for them to go to work, and won't--that is CRIMINAL in my book and I think their children should be removed and their funds as well. Children can't work and sustain themselves!! What don't you get? Should we just expect one part of society to sit on the stool of do nothing while the other pays for it in addition to paying for our own children?

What are you handout or food stamp king? It appears to me that you're less worried about the rights of the child and more worried about the rights of parents that don't deserve the right to be a parent until they get their act together.

I've tried to explain this to you and you're either too dumb or just choose to be obtuse, so you can argue with someone else about the right for people not to care for their children.
Exanguinated

Smartt, TN

#44740 Nov 22, 2013
The fears of Adams are realized, America is split into two nearly equal camps, eternally at war, each tearing down what the other has built up, until all that remains is rubble.
State of Florida

Taylorsville, NC

#44741 Nov 22, 2013
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
It was held up in the State Supreme Court. Edited and proofed the briefs.
Apparently I'm not as dense as you. What don't you get? Parents who do not or will not work cannot provide for their children. Thus, children fail to get proper medical help, nutrition, clothing, and many times housing they need. Now I don't know where you come from, but these are considered minimal needs that must be met by the parent. However, if a report is made and DSS investigates and a parent is overwhelmed and cannot provide for their children and neglect is substantiated appropriate services will be put in place and a case plan the parent must work. If the parent fails to work the case plan and thumbs their nose at the very system that is trying to help them, then their children can be removed. Why should any parent sit at home all day, not work, with their rent paid, insurance, food stamps and day care provided for them to go to work, and won't--that is CRIMINAL in my book and I think their children should be removed and their funds as well. Children can't work and sustain themselves!! What don't you get? Should we just expect one part of society to sit on the stool of do nothing while the other pays for it in addition to paying for our own children?
What are you handout or food stamp king? It appears to me that you're less worried about the rights of the child and more worried about the rights of parents that don't deserve the right to be a parent until they get their act together.
I've tried to explain this to you and you're either too dumb or just choose to be obtuse, so you can argue with someone else about the right for people not to care for their children.
Not exactly as you want us to believe, if you are referring to the case in Connecticutt where the mother had severe mental health issues and the court declared that the father had "love and affection" for his children and could provide for his 3 children with assistance, but failed to attend the parenting classes. Is this the case you are referring to under the legal theory of "predictive neglect?" This case went on for 10 years and the ruling only applies to ONE state, not the entire nation. Also, your legal theory of "in my book" (The book of Makin Bacon) hardly seems to be an acceptable legal standard that can be applied. No one argues that a severe mental condition is a reason to remove the children for their safety, but the condition soley of "unemployment" is a reason? If that is the case, there are a hell of a lot of children in America that would be removed from their parents. That is ridiculous. And under your theory, you have failed to mention that every case for the removal of children would have to be abjudicated in Court. Who is paying for that? Since the state brings the charges, the taxpayer pays the legal fees. I want every child to be protected from abuse, but unemployment in itself is not a valid reason for the children to become wards of the state.
Allen

Robbins, NC

#44742 Nov 22, 2013
Taxpayer wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are a coward afraid to stand and defend Liberty and Freedom for all. Just because they will call you a terrorist. People like you have no right to even be in this country. You dishonor the men and women who have given their lives so you can live free.
You can't tell me a damn thing about Liberty and Freedom old man. My 12th generation great grandfather Samuel Allen stepped off the "Mary and John" boat May 30, 1630 at Nantasket, Massachusetts. That was just ten years after the Mayflower. And to break it down for you a little more that was 146 years before the Declaration of Independance. That's 383 years of fighting for Liberty and Freedom. Today I also fight but I use my trigger finger in the voting booth:)
TSF

Rocky Mount, NC

#44744 Nov 22, 2013
What is the deal with tying a dead chicken around a child's neck? Never heard of that before. Why would anyone do that?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#44745 Nov 23, 2013
TSF wrote:
What is the deal with tying a dead chicken around a child's neck? Never heard of that before. Why would anyone do that?
TSF, that's people with some sick minds that would do this to a child. I believe this situation is one where I'd have to go Taxpayer on the adults that had these children. I haven't read anything about the reasoning of the dead chicken being tied around the child's neck. Again, this falls in the category of people parenting, adopting or fostering children strictly for monetary reasons and I hope they burn them a good one.
TSF

Rocky Mount, NC

#44746 Nov 23, 2013
You say you got a real solution

well you know

we'd all love to see the plan--
waco1909 wrote:
<quoted text> "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period.If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period". Obama.....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Harrisburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Did Rick Hendrick Ever Really Have Leukemia? (May '09) 8 min Johnny 83
SilverBack Lewis 9 hr Wantintoknow 11
bggb (Aug '14) 12 hr anonymous 186
Free Tickets to event. Mon Trump Train 1
News 13 MLK Day Celebrations and Observances in Char... Mon MLK eh 1
Why cant trannys use the restroom ? Jan 14 Tranny Guvna 11
Buh Bye All You IBM Employees (Oct '10) Jan 14 Yobama 314

Harrisburg Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Harrisburg Mortgages